Old Creationism and a Regional Flood

Status
Not open for further replies.

Peairtach

Puritan Board Doctor
What are the reason(s) why Old Earth Creationists tend to believe in the Flood being local rather than universal?
 
One of the reasons, is that a local flood would not have destroyed Cain's descendants. If you do some research on "Branhamites" or "Serpent Seed" they have no choice but to believe in the local flood to make their theories (theology) fit.

Another reason they don't believe in the global flood, is that would make them accountable to the bible. Imagine if it was only a local flood, then how did all the fossils happen, grand canyon and a list of others.
 
Why? If the flood was as high as even a quarter way up Mt. Ararat, and the flood lasted 150 days or so, what would have happened to the rest of the earth? Google Mt. Ararat's elevations. If you pour a hundred gallons of water into a cup on your floor, where does the excess go? Straight up, or will the water cover the floor? A local flood story forces you to chuck lots of other stuff out the window.
 
I don't hold to the local flood.

I'm just trying to ascertain the logical connection(s) between the two, as it may shed more light on long ages for the days, about which I am already highly sceptical.
 
1. The water was 15 - 30 cubits higher than the highest mountain. And since water levels itself out, it will look for the next highest mountain. So if the local mountains weren't high enough, the water would have kept going until it found another one higher and passed it.

2. Noah was in the ark for 6 months, if I remember correctly, so the water must have covered a big part of the earth, since he couldn't land anywhere

3. If it was just local, why didn't God just tell him to move, remember, he was building that thing for 100 yrs. Imagine the travels you could have done in 100 yrs, possibly around the world twice on foot?

To me, there are no biblical arguments that support the local flood. It mentions in scripture that all life with the breath in the nostrils perished.....
 
3. If it was just local, why didn't God just tell him to move

This is a good point, one I've never thought of before. Thanks for pointing it out.

I was preaching through 2 Peter recently, and this passage from chapter 3 stood out to me with regard to this subject:

Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.

Besides noting that the mockers hold to a form of uniformitarianism ("everything continues just as it was from the beginning of creation"), verse 6 clearly states that it was the world (kosmos) that was destroyed by flooding. I'm sure someone has come up with a way of exegetically getting around this, but it seems pretty straightforward to me.
 
Here's my understanding of the OEC flood position:
  1. The study of natural revelation necessarily excludes a geographically universal flood.
  2. The text of Scripture does not require a flood which was geographically universal.
  3. The text of Scripture does require a flood which was anthropically universal insofar as it encompassed the entirety of human civilization.
  4. A geographically local yet anthropically universal flood is consistent with the testimony of both natural and special revelation.
 
I have done some very quick math, and was very, very conservative on it.

Let's say that when God said let them be fruitful and multiply, he only allowed them 1 child every 5 yrs. Well, based on their years of living, Adam would have had 160 kids. Then, that would be 80 couples (perfect world here) and the next generation has 80 kids...and I know my math is somewhat flawed.

But the math I did, gave me 629 145 600 000 000, which, I am not even sure what number that is (quadrillion I think). So with this kind of potential population...and this is only with a child ever 5 yrs...and Adam was the only one that didn't see Noah, so they were all living at the time.....how can they all live within a few thousand square miles?

I am leaning towards a global flood.....now just quick, imagine with twins, triplets and so on......
 
To be honest I've never really given it much though, just always assumed the flood was global (and still lean that way). But I would ask if the flood was global (as in water covering all land), where did all the water go? It wouldn't have anywhere to retreat too. :think: Any help?
 
To be honest I've never really given it much though, just always assumed the flood was global (and still lean that way). But I would ask if the flood was global (as in water covering all land), where did all the water go? It wouldn't have anywhere to retreat too. :think: Any help?
One quick partial answer is that the world's terrain changed during the flood. Picture catastrophic geological uplifts and subsidence radically changing the face of our planet.
 
One of the strongest arguments for believing in creation rather than naturalistic evolution is the complex, fragile nature of ecosystems. If you take any recognizable ecosystem, say a marshland, a remove just a few key species, the marshland can no longer survive.

So, the problem with a global flood is the absolute devastation of plant life. If you have a flood covering the whole earth up to the mountains, enough to kill off literally every single animal on the face of the globe not in the ark, you lose almost all the plant life, too. Furthermore, you can't repopulate that plant life. Noah didn't take samples of all the plant species in the ark. What would the animals eat when they got out of the ark? And, I really have no idea what the answer to this question is, how would the salt and fresh water separate back out in such a scenario?

Now, it's possible that my tenuous knowledge of botany and ecology has led me astray. But, I've come across these objections before, and I've never really seen an answer to them. I'd love to hear one, though.
 
I have done some very quick math, and was very, very conservative on it.

Let's say that when God said let them be fruitful and multiply, he only allowed them 1 child every 5 yrs. Well, based on their years of living, Adam would have had 160 kids. Then, that would be 80 couples (perfect world here) and the next generation has 80 kids...and I know my math is somewhat flawed.

But the math I did, gave me 629 145 600 000 000, which, I am not even sure what number that is (quadrillion I think). So with this kind of potential population...and this is only with a child ever 5 yrs...and Adam was the only one that didn't see Noah, so they were all living at the time.....how can they all live within a few thousand square miles?

I am leaning towards a global flood.....now just quick, imagine with twins, triplets and so on......

This calculation doesn't take into account the deadly effects of man's sinfulness during the antediluvian era of all but unrestrained evil.

---------- Post added at 12:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 AM ----------

In other words, you have no idea how many of those ended up as casualties prematurely. That would tend to limit the population somewhat.
 
One of the strongest arguments for believing in creation rather than naturalistic evolution is the complex, fragile nature of ecosystems. If you take any recognizable ecosystem, say a marshland, a remove just a few key species, the marshland can no longer survive.

So, the problem with a global flood is the absolute devastation of plant life. If you have a flood covering the whole earth up to the mountains, enough to kill off literally every single animal on the face of the globe not in the ark, you lose almost all the plant life, too. Furthermore, you can't repopulate that plant life. Noah didn't take samples of all the plant species in the ark. What would the animals eat when they got out of the ark? And, I really have no idea what the answer to this question is, how would the salt and fresh water separate back out in such a scenario?

Now, it's possible that my tenuous knowledge of botany and ecology has led me astray. But, I've come across these objections before, and I've never really seen an answer to them. I'd love to hear one, though.

Very interesting...but not all vegetation was completely destroyed. For example, the dove Noah sends out brings back an olive leaf.

Gen 8:6-11
6At the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made 7and sent forth a raven. It went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth. 8Then he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters had subsided from the face of the ground. 9But the dove found no place to set her foot, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took her and brought her into the ark with him. 10He waited another seven days, and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark. 11And the dove came back to him in the evening, and behold, in her mouth was a freshly plucked olive leaf. So Noah knew that the waters had subsided from the earth.
 
I have done some very quick math, and was very, very conservative on it.

Let's say that when God said let them be fruitful and multiply, he only allowed them 1 child every 5 yrs. Well, based on their years of living, Adam would have had 160 kids. Then, that would be 80 couples (perfect world here) and the next generation has 80 kids...and I know my math is somewhat flawed.

But the math I did, gave me 629 145 600 000 000, which, I am not even sure what number that is (quadrillion I think). So with this kind of potential population...and this is only with a child ever 5 yrs...and Adam was the only one that didn't see Noah, so they were all living at the time.....how can they all live within a few thousand square miles?

I am leaning towards a global flood.....now just quick, imagine with twins, triplets and so on......

This calculation doesn't take into account the deadly effects of man's sinfulness during the antediluvian era of all but unrestrained evil.

---------- Post added at 12:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 AM ----------

In other words, you have no idea how many of those ended up as casualties prematurely. That would tend to limit the population somewhat.

Oh I agree with you 100%, and I mentioned in my post that my math was flawed in this calculation. But I was simply pointing out, that there was more than just 1000 people living on the planet at the time. But this number here, that I have calculated, simply shows that the possibility is there. I have NO scriptural support for that number, just showing that even myself, I thought there was only a few million people.

That math showed me there were no doubt more than a few million....
 
Andres, the olive leaf itself seems to point toward a regional flood. Olive trees aren't that tall, maybe 50 feet or so. And they grow mostly in coastal (low elevation) regions. So, this water wipes out all the animals on the planet everywhere - kills them - but there are intact leaves on a standing olive tree in the middle of a flood zone?
 
Andres, the olive leaf itself seems to point toward a regional flood. Olive trees aren't that tall, maybe 50 feet or so. And they grow mostly in coastal (low elevation) regions. So, this water wipes out all the animals on the planet everywhere - kills them - but there are intact leaves on a standing olive tree in the middle of a flood zone?

Perhaps I am completely misreading/misunderstanding the passage, but I read it that the waters were in fact completely covering all land, including vegetation. That's why verse 9 says the dove had no place to land. Then Noah sends the dove out again after waiting a week and the dove brings back the olive leaf showing the waters had subsided. Subsided means that they've gone down, meaning they were at one point higher and covering the land.
 
. And they grow mostly in coastal (low elevation) regions.

Did you even bother to look it up? Or did you look up Armenia's elevation? Or do you think that's a poetic exaggeration as well?
 
Dearly Bought said:
Here's my understanding of the OEC flood position:
1. The study of natural revelation necessarily excludes a geographically universal flood.
2. The text of Scripture does not require a flood which was geographically universal.
3. The text of Scripture does require a flood which was anthropically universal insofar as it encompassed the entirety of human civilization.
4. A geographically local yet anthropically universal flood is consistent with the testimony of both natural and special revelation.
That is the OEC flood position. However, I would substitute the word nature for natural revelation (although the OEC position I held does use the word "natural revelation" in the way your post expresses; indeed, I think that is an important part of the OEC position). Incidentally, this is also the kind of argument for long ages in the days of Creation that I held to and knew about too. A similar argument is that the Scripture is ambiguous and/or silent on these issues and so we must turn to science to see what happened.


Sviata Nich said:
But I would ask if the flood was global (as in water covering all land), where did all the water go?
According to one YEC theory, look at our modern oceans. From what I understand, the (simplified) idea is that the land sunk underneath the water and then geological activity raised land above the water again.
 
Last edited:
I'm more interested in the logical connections between holding to a long period of time for the days and therefore holding to a local flood.

Is it the case that since OECs hold that the fossil record is the period of time of the long age/framework days they don't like the idea of a global flood because it would spoil or at least confuse their strata?

Is this the case, or are there other reasons why OECs in particular as opposed to YECs would be local floodists?
 
. And they grow mostly in coastal (low elevation) regions.

Did you even bother to look it up? Or did you look up Armenia's elevation? Or do you think that's a poetic exaggeration as well?

Well, I know that they grow in the Mediterranean Basin, which I assumed to be the coastal areas bordering the Mediterranean Sea and excluding the mountainous regions. Perhaps I am mistaken? In any case, I thought about it some more, and I no longer think that the olive leaf has much to say either way.
 
3. If it was just local, why didn't God just tell him to move

This is a good point, one I've never thought of before. Thanks for pointing it out.

I was preaching through 2 Peter recently, and this passage from chapter 3 stood out to me with regard to this subject:

Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.

Besides noting that the mockers hold to a form of uniformitarianism ("everything continues just as it was from the beginning of creation"), verse 6 clearly states that it was the world (kosmos) that was destroyed by flooding. I'm sure someone has come up with a way of exegetically getting around this, but it seems pretty straightforward to me.

Speaking of ways of exegetically getting around this...
Some who hold to Old Earth Creationism do not believe the flood mentioned in 2 Peter 3 refers to Noah's flood. Rather, some that hold to Gap Creationism (or the Gap theory) believe there was a universal flood between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 and this is what is being referred to in 2 Peter 3. So beginning with Gen 1:3 we have re-creation. Then they typically hold that Noah's flood was a local flood.

For the record, I didn't claim it was good exegesis...
 
Speaking of ways of exegetically getting around this...
Some who hold to Old Earth Creationism do not believe the flood mentioned in 2 Peter 3 refers to Noah's flood. Rather, some that hold to Gap Creationism (or the Gap theory) believe there was a universal flood between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 and this is what is being referred to in 2 Peter 3. So beginning with Gen 1:3 we have re-creation. Then they typically hold that Noah's flood was a local flood.

For the record, I didn't claim it was good exegesis...

:wow: now that's a great example of eisegesis!

But since you mentioned it, does anyone of note really hold to the Gap Theory anymore?
 
Just because I'm a technical person like this, I'm going to point out that I don't believe in a universal flood either.

Although it would be interesting to ponder what would happen if the solar system was covered in water, I tend to believe in a global flood. ;)
 
But since you mentioned it, does anyone of note really hold to the Gap Theory anymore?

Well, i'm not sure of anyone truly noteworthy...but if you have satellite TV it is hard to miss the Shepherd's Chapel program with Arnold Murray who teaches Gap theory (along with Old Earth Creationism and the regional flood of Noah). The only reason I'd consider him "noteworthy" is because of the number of people he has the potential to "reach" with his bad/heretical theology (and the list is long).

If you aren't familiar with him, here is a nice little summary at CARM: Shepherd's Chapel | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
 
But since you mentioned it, does anyone of note really hold to the Gap Theory anymore?

Well, i'm not sure of anyone truly noteworthy...but if you have satellite TV it is hard to miss the Shepherd's Chapel program with Arnold Murray who teaches Gap theory (along with Old Earth Creationism and the regional flood of Noah). The only reason I'd consider him "noteworthy" is because of the number of people he has the potential to "reach" with his bad/heretical theology (and the list is long).

If you aren't familiar with him, here is a nice little summary at CARM: Shepherd's Chapel | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Isn't he one of the teachers of the "Serpent Seed" as well?
 
if you have satellite TV it is hard to miss the Shepherd's Chapel program with Arnold Murray who teaches Gap theory (along with Old Earth Creationism and the regional flood of Noah).

Oh, I remember watching Arnold Murray way back in the days of cable. He also advocated that the OT dietary laws were still in force, If I recall correctly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top